Tax the Rich Is a Popular Bipartisan Stance, Poll Shows | Hacker News Reader

Tax the Rich Is a Popular Bipartisan Stance, Poll Shows

bloomberg.com

According to Goldstein, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism (appearing in [Orwell49]), there are two possible governing coalitions in any society: Low+High (vs Middle) or Low+Middle (vs High).

If both Low and Middle were to agree the High ought be taxed, it would be to the High's advantage to stoke culture wars between Low and Middle in an effort to ensure the first coalition.

Nah, nationalize their assets instead. And democratize the economy.

Is this about the 1980 dead Kennedys Song?

  Swing-state voters also like tax hikes on those earning $400,000 and more

$400k isn't "rich". In many California places, it's merely middle class. You can't even buy a house in many parts of Silicon Valley with that salary. A median house in Cupertino is $2.9 million.

If they truly want to tax the "rich", they should go after the billionaires whom the tax code heavily favors.

No wonder China was able to catch up this quick, 400k isn't rich? What a poorly managed state

The median household income in California is $92k. The top 1% is $844k. $400k is definitely pretty rich, but it's interesting how many wealthy Americans resolutely deny that they fall into this category.

Not in Silicon Valley. It should be geolocation specific. $400k really isn't that much here.

Again, you can't buy an average house here with that salary.

$400k after taxes is around $260k or around $21k/month. If you buy a median house in Cupertino or just about anywhere in Silicon Valley, the mortgage + property taxes is around $20,000/month.

You have $1k left over.

Hence, $400k is not rich here.

Sure, but in the context of a discussion of swing states, it seems relevant to consider California as a whole. Median income in Silicon Valley is still a lot lower than 400k, in any case.

Applying a blanket all number to tax is a mistake. Yes, it's already like this and it's a mistake. Let's not make it even worse.

It's a mistake from the point of view of the small minority of people who'd pay more taxes – no surprises there.

Sure, I’m arguing that the minority needs to be moved up a few more pecs. Try $4 million instead of $400k.

$400k is not enough to buy a house in Cupertino, not enough to start a family, not enough to enjoy an upper middle class lifestyle. But go ahead. Apply a blanket all rate to everyone.

Yes, I understand that $400k is a lot for many parts of the world/country.

You seem completely disconnected from the reality of what people are earning. Even if you look just at the Bay Area, the median income is 'only' $120k. The people who are primarily suffering from the high cost of living in this area aren't software engineers on $400k. It's a shame if these people can't buy their dream houses in their dream locations, but why should that be a priority for California's 22 million voters?

In a decade of that income one could own a house (or 3) in a different town or state, fly in once a week to live in a typical apartment rental someone making 50k-70k might rent, and still have money left over for a boat or whatever else. Absurd to say someone isn't objectively rich making $400k.

Again, it’s not absurd. It’s hard to fathom but it’s true. The math doesn’t lie. Cost of living is outrageous here. $400k is not rich. Try 40 million instead.

But I just outlined how to be more rich than almost anyone in the country, in both real estate and disposable income available to you, with 40 seconds of thought. Maybe you can't own a 2.9 million dollar home on 400k, but you could own multiple of the homes most of us are looking for without blinking. Able to be a landlord at any point and charge rent to pay off a mortgage on a 400k home for you. Do that 3 or 4 times and you have your 2.9 million. Maybe even spend many people's annual salary to have someone take care of those properties as rentals for a few years amd/or renovate them, because that barely puts in a dent in the pocketbook.

400k is far more freedom than most people could ever dream of.

Cool, and how do you think this person got a $400k salary job? It's because the cost of living here is so high that companies have to pay extremely high salaries.

How are you going to get a $400k salary job in Detroit Michigan?

Regardless, 400k is high income. You are just choosing to spend it all on housing.

You may not be rich, but 400k is definitely high income. Hell, 100k is high income.

Look around you. I'm sure someone making 400k/yr has been to a restuarant / bar in the last week, after all they're pretty well off. How do these people that are making less than 50k per year, many also probably going to school, renting houses owned by people with 400k/yr salary, get by if even the people with 400k/yr "can't"?

You must realize even the people I'm describing here are also actually in the top % of the world, and the extra taxes any government would ask of you would barely even help them. There's about 5-10 rungs below the poor people I'm describing that need desprate help. And the idea of someone losing 30k in taxes a year because they have to own a 2 million dollar home instead of a 3 million dollar home is so absurd to the person deciding between school books for their kid or an extra 1 lb of protein for a decent meal.

Regnart Elementary school in Cupertino is in danger of being closed down because not enough young families with kids are moving to Cupertino because it's too damned expensive. So using it as a realistic ruler for all of Silicon Valley seems disingenuous when people in Silicon Valley can't even live there! Might as well have chosen Atherton or Woodside for all the relevance they have.

$400k is a lot, even in California. It would be nice to have more, and not have to make any sort of sacrifices at all on living location or anything at all. Get the big house, the nice car; all that. But people raise families on less than that in California. They just don't get to have the BMW and own that McMansion, and have to be picky about when to Doordash.

There will always be someone with more money to point at.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, $400,000 would pay almost all people's rent at least 5 times over. It would pay the average rent in Manhattan 5 times over. It would pay my rent 30 times over.

I would say being able to afford property in one of the most expensive places on earth qualifies as "rich".

Hell, $400000 would pay off my entire mortgage outright and then some. It's literally over 10x what I earn and I consider myself to have a pretty comfortable income. Do people really earn that much and think they aren't rich?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com